New Game 7 Human players - Page 2

buster · June 24, 2001, 05:48

As there has been little response here the last days (is everyone getting discoouraged by prelims?).

I suggest we get it going.

If alright - I will sift out the rules from what has been voted - where it is not clear I will do the usually used rules (which is for instance no communication till you meet).

It will be a medium Map - the one called Planet in your maps directory under alpha centauri.

regards
Kim

Tai Mai Shu · June 24, 2001, 05:53

That's perfectly fine with me, my email is Spoofmaster@hotmail.com, and I'm all set to go.

Levelisk · June 24, 2001, 10:19

Sounds good. My email is jeffrey@thecases.com in case you don't have it already

SmartFart · June 24, 2001, 10:44

Let's play

smartfart@pulp-fiction.com

johndmuller · June 24, 2001, 14:02

Great buster, it's fine with me to get going, just so long as any ambiguous rules are spelled out before they make any difference. I think I put in my email address earlier, but if not, it is johndmuller@msn.com.
Thanks again,
John

John Paul Jones · June 24, 2001, 15:53

Mine's in my profile : johnpauljones@oceanfree.net

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 11:25

All

Strategy, Speed and Flexibility of Economic Development will be impacted Greatly by indescision around some of the BUGS.

You will have to play your game making economic and miliatary descision based on possible bugs that dramatically affect the way of the game.

Whatever votes are registered will stand. Myself, Tai Mai Shu, SmartFart and Johndfuller have taken positions on these "considerations" Make sure you do as well. Let yourself be heard.

See my next post for voting categories and progress so far.

Tai Mai Shu: It is impossible for me to just put NO in all the undisputed categories as a yes/no answer is not what is called for

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 11:27

EDITED OUT

johndmuller · June 25, 2001, 13:35

Well, if we must deal with the details, then I guess we should get it over with as soon as possible. Dinoarms, if you were hoping that we could all edit this thread, I'm afraid that the board won't let us.

First, dinoarms, you introduced a bug into my name; it should be johndmuller.

Map: I thought we had a consensus on a standard size world map; I could handle a larger size (although it would probably take longer for us to encounter each other), but I'd rather not go smaller. I'd be happiest with a unknown world - i.e. random or otherwise contrived unknown to us - although that might make more work for Buster. If not unknown, then I don't suppose I care whether it is Terra, Planet or the Tournament map - do they all come with the added-on landmarks (boreholes and manifold), I don't think my SMAC generates them on the planet map IIRC.

Dinoarms, I think that you've got a few duplicates in here.

1. Neutral
2&3. I'm not sure what the issues are.
4. Yes
5. Yes - Does the victim know they've been probed?
6. Yes
7. Yes (you've got Tai Mai Shu going both ways.

8. Please clarify question - the yes/no aspect is confusing.
....suggest: "Allow SE quickies and upgrading crawlers for quick SP's" in which case I say "No"
9. No
10. Neutral
11. Yes
12. Yes -- Unbalanced if some do and some don't (see past threads for extent of imbalance)
....If you're worried about it then make it optional and everyone will need to do it.
....else spotchecks by CMN to enforce.
13 thru 17. Yes
18. 48 hour rule seems kinda harsh
19. Yes - I think that the base sinking is one of the main reasons for the rule.
20. Yes - Dinoarms, I don't think it is too relevant in a game with only humans,
.... but I'm shocked

that you would even think of doing this on purpose.
21. Yes - This is the same as # 5 !
22. Yes
23. No - This is "reverse engineering" again (#7) !! (at least it is in reverse this time)
24. >Missing<
25. Yes
26. No - I didn't even know you could do this.
27. Neutral
28. What do yes and no mean here?
.... Isn't this a repeat of # 8 !!!
....I think that this is at least partly covered by # 16

Comm before contact: No
Comm by email: Yes
There is also the ability to make announcements in the turn tracking thread.

Sunspots: how allowing about Comm during sunspots anyway; then we won't have to keep track?

Hopefully, we can nail these things down and get started.

Levelisk · June 25, 2001, 13:50

The points that have some dispute as of now and my feelings towards them:

5) Yes, unless given prior permission to select Ignore Action instead

7) Yes

12) Doesn't matter. dinoarms: Letting players do such will only help the momentum builders, as they will get more money when something is constructed (it always happens when you build a facility or SP, unless something is in the queue after that).

19) Yes, prohibit that, in all forms. Especially since that bug is fixed in SMAX...

20) Yes, no erasing Vendetta actions that way, including Probe Actions

21) Yes. dinoarms: The prober is given the box in multiplayer for some reason, and he has to choose for the victim.

22) Depends. If cooperative victory is enabled (I vote it is), then yes because pacts will more than likely last the whole game. Otherwise, no.

26) No renaming cities (the statement offered is kind of vague)

27) No

28) No. No switching back to a SE setting in the same turn, unless you're just checking for how many drones you'll acquire with FM, for example. dinoarms: this, like many others, just requires honesty

buster · June 25, 2001, 14:15

To johndmuller:

Regarding maps it makes no difference to me. The only problem with an unknown map is to fairly distribute start postions.
Anyway - with the scenario editor I can go in and modify it - if it is obvious some player is getting a bad deal.

Regarding landmarks - as it is a Smac game I assume the smacx landmarks will be left out (like crash site).

The planet map btw does have the Landmarks and is quite fairly split up in three major landmasses.

The tourney map I personally have a hard time seeing with 7 players. It is made for 4 with more it would be a somewhat unfair map I think as all landmarks are on the continents and one would need to go on one continent and two on one of the others.

Anyway - I have no personal wishes in this matter. It is completely up to you people. If you want random you will have that. If you want prepared fine with me too - only if it some other map than planet or terra someone will need to tell me which one and where to find it or send it.

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 14:53

Johndmuller

Copy's, hehe good...less to consider.

A standard map it will be. I'm not sure what Buster can dig up. , with you on the map being unknown.

2. Announcement of prob actions.

I believe this has to do with declaring vendetta before you probe a faction you have a treaty or pact with

votes
yes: dinoarms

3. Use of Demand withdrawl button

I believe this enables/disables a faction ability to right click in the commlink and choose the demand withdrawl option to involuntarily move a factions units back to there nearest base if they are on your territory.

votes
no: dinoarms

5. declare vendetta for probe actions
yes: tai mai shu, Johndmuller
no: dinoarms
comment
Dinoarms: up to the victim on the following turn

He will know he has been probed on his next turn. The problem is that when you probe someone a popup appears asking you to declare vendetta or give stern warning. This popup is for the victim of the probe action. Answering no to this option will mean that you will choose the "give stern warning option" and therefore the choice to declare vendetta will be left to the victim.

7. Reverse engineering
yes (except probes to rovers) Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller, dinoarms
no
dinoarms: we will need the CMN to police this game

8. Allow SE quickies and no upgrading crawlers for quick SP's
yes
no Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller
comment
neutral: dinoarms

10. Pod booming past hab limits
yes Tai Mai Shu
no: dinoarms
neutral: Johndmuller

12. Inserting Stockpile Energy into the build queue after a military unit is forbidden.
yes: Johndmuller
no
neutral: dinoarms
comment
dinoarms: I don't know sound hard to force. Does it imbalance the game?
Johndmuller: Yes -- Unbalanced if some do and some don't (see past threads for extent of imbalance)
....If you're worried about it then make it optional and everyone will need to do it.
,,,,else spotchecks by CMN to enforce

16. Social engineering choice limited to one switch per line per turn. (no flip-flop within turn!)
yes dinoarms, Johndmuller
no
comment
dinoarms: How can we prove that this is being done?

18. I don't think the CMN will be that strict.

19. Starting a terraforming operation in one square, cancelling it, moving to a different square, and then finishing it in that new square is prohibited in cases of "combat terraforming." This prevents "crediting up" a terraformer in a safe location and then moving it to a dangerous location where the terraforming is completed in one turn. An example of this would be using a sea former to sink an enemy coastal base - the sea former has to do all of the work in the target square where the enemy can retaliate.
yes
no
comment
dinoarms: this technique is fine with me except for "base sinking"

I am not sure what your yes means. Please qualify.

28. I removed this question as it is covered in 8. and 16.

Communication

I believe there is a bug that allows you to read all dip. comlink communication that have occured in the game.

Com before contact
yes
no: dinoarms, smartfart, Johndmuller

Comm by email:
Yes : dinoarms, Johndmuller

Sunspot Communications Block
yes dinoarms
no Johndmuller

Whoever notices sunspots first should notify the CMN who can notify all players by email.

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 15:11

After taking into account Johndmullers vote we now have...

wins in
1-8, 10-17, 20, 21, 23, 25

ties is
9, 19, 22, 24

no votes in
18

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 16:10

Levelisk

7. Could you qaulify? ie probes to rovers

12. Do you mean to say that the min bonus is received if there is a facility following the unit as well. I understood that these extra minerals where only supplied in the case of stockpile in the que after a miliatary unit.

19. Will you not be able to use it if BECAUSE of SMACX?

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 17:06

We now have votes from
Dinoarms
Tai Mai Shu
Johndfuller
Levelisk
Smartfart

and none from Solver and John Paul Jones. They have been emailed

Thus far we have winning votes in these categories
1, 5, 8, 10, 21, 26-27

Thus far we have consensus in these categories
2-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-18, 23-25

Thus far we conflict in these categories
12, 20, 22

Thus far we have no votes in these categories

We have details to resolve in these categories
5, 7, 19

dinoarms · June 25, 2001, 17:12

We have votes from all players.

I would like to see the settings resolved within 48 hours

Game Settings

Fixed:
Transcend
Rated
Cooperative Victory disabled
Small or Standard map

Voted:
standard map
Ocean 30-50%
Low Erosion
Aliens average
Cloud Cover Dense
Do or Die
Look First
Spoils of War
Directed research
No Unity Survey
Random Events On : debated
Pod scattering

Map Considerations

standard, unknown, balanced with all SMAC landmarks well distributed.

Buster could you find or make one for us?

The categories for bug consideration/votes are:

a. random events on:
yes: dinoarms
no : Solver
neutral : johndmuller

b. pod scattering
yes dinoarms, Solver, johndmuller

1. Accelerated start:
yes
no dinoarms, smartfart, tai mai shu, johnpauljones, Solver
neutral: Johndmuller

2. Announcement of prob actions
yes john paul jones
no: dinoarms, Solver
comment

3. Use of Demand withdrawl button
yes john paul jones
no: dinoarms, johndmuller
comment

I believe this enables/disables a faction ability to right click in the commlink and choose the demand withdrawl option to involuntarily move a factions units back to there nearest base if they are on your territory.

4. Upgrade (individual) at end of turn only
yes: Dinoarms, Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller, Solver
no johnpauljones
comment
dinoarms: JPJ. this would allow a player to upgrade his units before he attack on the same turn.

5. declare vendetta for probe actions in the popup menu
yes: tai mai shu, Johdmuller, Levelisk*. johnpauljones, Solver,dinoarms
no: dinoarms,
comment
Dinoarms: up to the victim on the following turn
Levelisk: unless given prior permission by the probee

6. Design (Workshop) upgrades at end of turn only
yes
no
comment

7. Reverse engineering
yes (except probes to rovers) Tai Mai Shu, dinoarms, Johndmuller (Yes including rovers): Levelisk
(no none at all):
comment
dinoarms : planetary networks allows for the creation of rovers without obtaining dovtrine mobility. There are two yes answers here

8. Allow SE quickies and no upgrading crawlers for quick SP's
yes
no Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller,Solver
comment
neutral: dinoarms, johnpauljones

9. Multi airdrops
yes
no Dinoarms, Tai Mai Shu,Johndmuller,johnpauljones,Solver
comment

10. Pod booming past hab limits
yes Tai Mai Shu, dinoarms, johnpauljones,Solver
no
neutral: Johndmuller

11. Multiple drops or orbital insertions using the right-click menu is forbidden.
yes dinoarms, Johndmuller, johnpauljones, Solver
no
comment

12. Inserting Stockpile Energy into the build queue after a military unit is forbidden.
yes: Johndmuller, Solver
no: dinoarms
neutral: Levelisk, johnpauljones
comment

dinoarms: I don't know sound hard to force. Does it imbalance the game?

Johndmuller: Yes -- Unbalanced if some do and some don't (see past threads for extent of imbalance)
....If you're worried about it then make it optional and everyone will need to do it.
....else spotchecks by CMN to enforce.

Levelisk: Doesn't matter. dinoarms: Letting players do such will only help the momentum builders, as they will get more money when something is constructed (it always happens when you build a facility or SP, unless something is in the queue after that

dinoarms: Do you mean to say that the min bonus is received if there is a facility following the unit as well? I understood that these extra minerals where only supplied in the case of stockpile in the que after a miliatary unit.

13. If a player employs a tactic that causes a state of vendetta, they are not allowed to "accept" a pending diplomatic agreement with that faction, causing a change in diplomatic status or the transfer of energy or knowledge.
yes: dinoarms, johndmuller, johnpauljones
no
comment

14. If a probe team action is employed against a Treatied or Pacted faction, the initiator must choose the "Declare Vendetta" option, unless permission is received in advance for the action (email).
yes: dinoarms, Johndmuller , johnpauljones
no
comment:

15. Upgrading units with the design workshop is allowed at end of turn only.
yes: dinoarms, Johndmuller
no johnpauljones
comment

16. Social engineering choice limited to one switch per line per turn. (no flip-flop within turn!)
yes dinoarms, Johndmuller, Levelisk,johnpauljones
no
comment

17. Psi units cannot be assigned multiple point patrol routes (avoid instant demon boil bug!)
yes: dinoarms, Johndmuller, johnpauljones
no
comment

18. Each game is initiated by a CMN who is not participating in that particular game. The CMN assigns a unique password to each player, emails it to them and sends out the first turn to the first player. If a player is away/offline/unable to play for over 48 hours, he/she must notify the CMN and the other players of the game about this and request the game to be postponed for a fixed time period. Otherwise, if a player does not respond to the game turn within 48 hours (without prior notification and postponing of the game), then the CMN will enter the game in place of the player, and at the option of the other players, either obliterate all bases and disband all units or turn the faction over to the AI. Alternatively, a replacement player may be found. If more players drop out similarly, then the last player is automatically declared to be the winner of the game.

Vote for Buster: dinoarms
(Vote for a non-playing CMN):Solver
Yes to specs dinoarms, Solver
No to specs

comment
dinoarms: I don't think the CMN will be that strict.

revised
19. Starting a terraforming operation in one square, cancelling it, moving to a different square, and then finishing it in that new square is prohibited in cases of "combat terraforming." This prevents "crediting up" a terraformer in a safe location and then moving it to a dangerous location where the terraforming is completed in one turn. An example of this would be using a sea former to sink an enemy coastal base - the sea former has to do all of the work in the target square where the enemy can retaliate.
yes prohibit it:
(no keep but ban base sinking): dinoarms
comment

dinoarms: this technique is fine with me except for "base sinking"

dinoarms: Johndmuller, I am not sure what your yes means. Please qualify.

Levelisk: Yes, prohibit that, in all forms. Especially since that bug is fixed in SMAX...

20. If you perform an act that causes a state of vendetta with another player, no pending negotiations in the diplomacy window with the victim can be completed until the victim has a chance to reevaluate the diplomatic situation. Example: You have been negotiating a treaty with another player, and the other player has accepted the treaty in the diplomacy window, but you have not. You perform an act that causes a state of vendetta between the two of you - probe team action, build a new base in the other's territory, attack units or bases, etc. Now you are prohibited from accepting the treaty (and erasing the state of vendetta) until the other player has a chance to take back the diplomatic offer. It is OK to first accept the diplomatic offers and then do the act that causes a vendetta.
yes Johndmuller, Levelisk, johnpauljones, dinoarms
no
comment

22. Setting the home of a unit to be the base of a pacted player is prohibited
yes: Johndmuller, johnpauljones, Solver
no: Levelisk
neutral: dinoarms
comment

25. If you call a meeting of the Planetary Council, you should send an email message to all of the other players stating: a) what is being voted on, b) what choices are available, c) if it a vote for governor then how many votes each faction gets. This rule is necessary so that players who will vote near the end of the election have a chance to make promises and influence the votes of players who must vote earlier.
yes: dinoarms, Johndmuller, johnpauljones
no
comment

26. You may rename a city to allow multiple artifacts to be connected to the same network node.
yes: dinoarms,
no: Johndmuller, Levelisk, johnpauljones, Solver
comment

27. (Shift-u) command will allow the passenger to unload while the air transport is in flight.
yes johnpauljones
no: dinoarms, Levelisk, Solver
neutral: Johndmuller

Communication

I believe there is a bug that allows you to read all dip. comlink communication that have occured in the game.

Com before contact
yes
no: dinoarms, smartfart, Johndmuller, johnpauljones, Solver

Comm by email:
Yes : dinoarms, Johndmuller, johnpauljones

Sunspot Communications Block
yes dinoarms, johnpauljones
no Johndmuller

Whoever notices sunspots first should notify the CMN who can notify all players by email.

Tai Mai Shu · June 25, 2001, 17:25

#19 I'd have to say no to, sounds like there'd be too much of a chance to do some base sinking or other really nasty stuff (raise/lower territory to destroy tons of terraforming)

Levelisk · June 25, 2001, 18:01

clarifications:

7) I'm saying yes to reverse engineering, including probes to rovers

12) On this, I mean that you get the mineral bonus after the completion of a facility, unless something follows it in the queue. It is just like adding Stockpile Energy to the queue right after a unit in terms of how it behaves, except it can't be prevented (unless you force everyone to have something in the queue after a SP or facility)

19) From what I understand, the terraforming bug that lets you save up terraforming points has been addressed in SMACX. If you play through SMAC, it will still be there. If this was a SMACX game, we wouldn't have to worry.

johndmuller · June 25, 2001, 18:47

Dinoarms, you've still got my name wrong at the beginning of the table (in the list of players).

We are playing SMAC v4, aren't we?

2. I don't believe that the explanation goes with the question; so I'm still in the dark.

3. I supposse that there is some bug or inequity about this so I guess I'm against it too (that would be a No vote), but if anyone wants to explain it......

4 and 6 are the same question too !!!!

12. The way it works is that you get extra energy or econ if you have stockpile energy after units or nothing (which translates to stockpile energy) after a facility (or SP?). If you use the queue in the way it was designed, you don't get the bennies. Thus, in the absence of rules, one should put StkEng after units and nothing after facs or lose out on free money. The rule is supposed to be the easiest/compromise soulution - "do whatever you want after facilities, but no putting Stockpile Energy after units". I'm voting for that rule, not because I like it, but because it is supposed to be the PBEM standard.

18. Yes (hoping for leniency if I have bad connection troubles)

19. Yes (prohibit stoking up formers for a sneak attack).

22. (lobbying for "Yes" votes) IIRC, the reason it is prohibited in the standard ruoles is that if you do it, nobody pays for the maintenance on the unit, which is clearly a bug IMO.

27. I like to do it with grav-transports, but we'll probably not get to them anyway.

28. I'm against the SE switching stuff, but I don't know what kind of vote that translates into.

John Paul Jones · June 26, 2001, 03:54

1. Accelerated start: No

2. Announcement of prob actions: Yes - unless frame was successful ?

3. Use of Demand withdrawl button: Yes

4. Upgrade at end of turn only: No
Not sure what the fuss is about here

5. declare vendetta for probe actions: Yes , obvious bug here

6. Design upgrades at end of turn only : as above ^

7. Reverse engineering : Yes (this is an intended feature of the game)

8. SE quickies and no upgrading crawlers for quick SP's : Neutral

9. Multi airdrops : no , another obvious bug

10. Pod booming past hab limits : Yes , why not ?

11. Multiple drops or orbital insertions using the right-click menu is forbidden: Yes , same as above

12. Inserting Stockpile Energy into the build queue after a military unit is forbidden: Neutral , hard to enforce especially in early game - calls for an honour code to be adopted by players

13. If a player employs a tactic that causes a state of vendetta, they are not allowed to "accept" a pending diplomatic agreement with that faction, causing a change in diplomatic status or the transfer of energy or knowledge.

Yes , another design oversight

14. If a probe team action is employed against a Treatied or Pacted faction, the initiator must choose the "Declare Vendetta" option, unless permission is received in advance for the action (email).

Yes , hasn't this already been asked ?

15. Upgrading units with the design workshop is allowed at end of turn only.

No - deja vu here...

16. Social engineering choice limited to one switch per line per turn. (no flip-flop within turn!)

Yes.

17. Psi units cannot be assigned multiple point patrol routes (avoid instant demon boil bug!)

Yes - don't know if anyone knows this but the same applies to normal units (i won't give details - but trust me it works)

18. Each game is initiated by a CMN who is not participating in that particular game. The CMN assigns a unique password to each player, emails it to them and sends out the first turn to the first player. If a player is away/offline/unable to play for over 48 hours, he/she must notify the CMN and the other players of the game about this and request the game to be postponed for a fixed time period. Otherwise, if a player does not respond to the game turn within 48 hours (without prior notification and postponing of the game), then the CMN will enter the game in place of the player, and at the option of the other players, either obliterate all bases and disband all units or turn the faction over to the AI. Alternatively, a replacement player may be found. If more players drop out similarly, then the last player is automatically declared to be the winner of the game.

Yes

19. Starting a terraforming operation in one square, cancelling it, moving to a different square, and then finishing it in that new square is prohibited in cases of "combat terraforming." This prevents "crediting up" a terraformer in a safe location and then moving it to a dangerous location where the terraforming is completed in one turn. An example of this would be using a sea former to sink an enemy coastal base - the sea former has to do all of the work in the target square where the enemy can retaliate.

Ok with me

20. If you perform an act that causes a state of vendetta with another player, no pending negotiations in the diplomacy window with the victim can be completed until the victim has a chance to reevaluate the diplomatic situation. Example: You have been negotiating a treaty with another player, and the other player has accepted the treaty in the diplomacy window, but you have not. You perform an act that causes a state of vendetta between the two of you - probe team action, build a new base in the other's territory, attack units or bases, etc. Now you are prohibited from accepting the treaty (and erasing the state of vendetta) until the other player has a chance to take back the diplomatic offer. It is OK to first accept the diplomatic offers and then do the act that causes a vendetta.

O.k

21. If you do a probe team operation against another player and you get the popup that asks for "Declare vendetta" or "Let off with a stern warning", you must select "Declare vendetta" unless you have received permission from the other player to choose the other option. This popup window is meant for the victim to choose, not the prober.

Yes again

22. Setting the home of a unit to be the base of a pacted player is prohibited

Agree

23. It's not allowed to take advantage of the design of a captured unit to produce units with components you don't have the tech for. You can only produce the exact duplicate of the captured unit. (This applies to probe teams too: you can produce rover probe teams but not other rovers using the design of a probe team.)

Disagree again

25. If you call a meeting of the Planetary Council, you should send an email message to all of the other players stating: a) what is being voted on, b) what choices are available, c) if it a vote for governor then how many votes each faction gets. This rule is necessary so that players who will vote near the end of the election have a chance to make promises and influence the votes of players who must vote earlier.

Yes

26. Rename a city to allow multiple artifacts to be connected to the same network node.

This ones new to me...No i guess

27. (Shift-u) command will allow the passenger to unload while the air transport is in flight.

Also new to me - why not - provided you give them parachutes first

28. Switching industry social engineering does not change the number of minerals in the minerals stockpile accumulated towards production of the next build item. Adding a supply crawler to a secret project or prototype under construction will add minerals to the minerals stockpile equal to the cost in minerals of the supply crawler using the current industry social engineering value, not the cost in minerals of the supply crawler when the supply crawler was built. Switching to a different social engineering setting and then switching back to the original setting in the same turn refunds the cost of the first switch for a net cost of zero energy. Putting all of these facts together creates the trick of building supply crawlers inexpensively using a good industry setting, switching to a bad industry setting with the associated energy cost, adding the supply crawlers to the secret project/prototype for more minerals than it cost to make them, and finally switching back to the good industry setting to produce the secret project/prototype inexpensively, getting a refund of the energy spent to switch to the bad industry setting as well.

dont have time to read all that but it sounds like something ive already voted on.

Communication

Com before contact : No
All communication should be by email as I believe there is a bug that allows you to read all dip. comlink communication that have occured in the game.

Ok

Also whoever notices sunspots first should notify the CMN who can notify all players by email.
fine

Tai Mai Shu · June 26, 2001, 07:39

I've been reading some of these, and I think the really hard to enforce ones should just be allowed. This way there doesn't have to be any guessing as to if people are doing it or not.

Solver · June 26, 2001, 10:07

The full list of my preferrences is:
Directed research, no tech stag, all victory types enabled, pods ON, random events OFF, Look first ON. Communications not allowed before they actually meet on the map.
Of those existing cheats, all should be prohibited, like the crawler upgrading, instant terraforming and such.
Annouce probe actions NO, declare vendetta on probe YES. Use demand withdrawal YES>
No Accel start (kinda stupid), and of course no multiple airdrops. I think it's already fixed ina patch, though. Booming post hab limits - yes. As for the stockpile energy, I don't care for that much. No switching SE choices in one turn. Didn't know about rename city / artifacts bug, but this should obviously be considered a cheat and, therefore, forbidden.
About the CMN - I'd like it to be someone not in a game, but I'd prefer if we can set the passwords ourselves, not have them chosen by the CMN.
Also, the Planetary Governor elections should happen the way it's used to, that is with warning everyone. Here's a copy of Googlie's email to me, about the elections and how should they take place. John Paul Jones did some expanations here, but I believe the whole email should be included here.

Quote:

Email from Googlie
You should fire up the screen, and note who are candidates for governor,
and how many votes each has, plus the other factions votes, then e-mail
around everyone so that both candidates have a fair chance at negotiating
their votes with the others. meantime you can approach the AI factions
with bribery, etc to secure their votes.

e.g. in a 4-player game, where you call the elcetion, and, say, buy the
Uni AI vote, your e-mail around might look something like:

************************************************** **********

To: all player in XXXXX

Re: Council elections for Governor.

Candidates:

Solver
A.N Other

Votes:

Solver, 66, for Solver
University, 42, for Solver

A.N. Other, 62
Human III, 31
Human IV, 30
AI II, 27
AI III, 25

*********************************************

That gives the other human candidate a chance to solicit votes, or if
an AI candidate, allows human factions to contact it to see what bribes
may be getting offered.

If it's a different proposal, e.g. for the trade pact or fusion core,
just open the sacreen and put it to the vote, and then circulate the
others that it is underway and ask for their support. In those instances
it's a 1 faction 1 vote affair, so you might have to buy a faction or
two's vote to get it passed

Hope that helps.

(There's a good example of a governor vote in Apolyton's OktoberFist
III's thread, which is a seven-player game)

G.

Thanks Googlie for that explanation! I believe this is all, but please post if I forgot to mention something. And, just in case - looks like we're playing SMAC here, but I also have SMAX v.2.

dinoarms · June 26, 2001, 13:12

johnpauljones

The following attempts to answer some of your questions. As well
I need confirmation on my inturpretation of some of your votes

4. Upgrade at end of turn only: No
Not sure what the fuss is about here

4. Upgrade at end of turn only
yes: Dinoarms, Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller
no johnpauljones
comment
dinoarms: JPJ. this would allow a player to upgrade his units before he attack on the same turn.Whereas this...

15. Upgrading units with the design workshop is allowed at end of turn only.

No - deja vu here... ...concerns the specifically upgrading in the design workshop

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Reverse engineering : Yes (this is an intended feature of the game)

7. Reverse engineering
yes (except probes to rovers) Tai Mai Shu, dinoarms, Johndmuller Yes including rovers: Levellisk
no
comment
dinoarms : planetary networks allows for the creation of rovers without obtaining doctrine mobility. There are two yes answers here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Multiple drops or orbital insertions using the right-click menu is forbidden: Yes , same as above

11. Multiple drops or orbital insertions using the right-click menu is forbidden.
yes dinoarms, Johndmuller, johnpauljones
no
comment

Your vote was vague JOHNPAULJONES...is yes correct?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Starting a terraforming operation in one square, cancelling it, moving to a different square, and then finishing it in that new square is prohibited in cases of "combat terraforming." This prevents "crediting up" a terraformer in a safe location and then moving it to a dangerous location where the terraforming is completed in one turn. An example of this would be using a sea former to sink an enemy coastal base - the sea former has to do all of the work in the target square where the enemy can retaliate.
yes prohibit it: Levelisk* , Tai Mai Shu, johndmuller
no keep it: dinoarms*, johnpauljones
comment

Your vote was vague JOHNPAULJONES...is no correct?

dinoarms · June 26, 2001, 14:59

Solver

You have ressurected a couple of vote categories.

map setting: random on:
yes dinoarms
no Solver

Pod scattering
yes dinoarms, Solver

Choosing your password is fine I'm sure. But the CMN must know it

johndmuller · June 26, 2001, 15:49

If you are collecting votes on random events, mine is neutral leaning toward off, which I will vote if there is otherewise a tie.

pod scattering: yes

Quote:

4. Upgrade at end of turn only
yes: Dinoarms, Tai Mai Shu, Johndmuller
no johnpauljones
comment
dinoarms: JPJ. this would allow a player to upgrade his units before he attack on the same turn.Whereas this...

15. Upgrading units with the design workshop is allowed at end of turn only.

No - deja vu here... ...concerns the specifically upgrading in the design workshop

Dinoarms, I don't think a unit can move after you upgrade it in the normal (not workshop) fashion - it uses up its turn. Thus, there is deja vu.

Quote:

7. Reverse engineering
yes (except probes to rovers) Tai Mai Shu, dinoarms, Johndmuller Yes including rovers: Levellisk
no
comment
dinoarms : planetary networks allows for the creation of rovers without obtaining doctrine mobility. There are two yes answers here.

Looks like 3+ yes answers to me.

Are we almost through this phase?

dinoarms · June 26, 2001, 15:53

All

All players have voted

Important!: Unless there is objection we will have a deadline of 48 hours to finalize votes afterwhich any ties will be resolved at the sole disgreession of the CMN

Important!: You may change your votes anytime during that period. DEADLINE IS June 28 10pm

NOTE: feel free change and vote on any category

NOTE: I will send out summaries and respond when i am online

IMPORTANT NOTE!: declaring your votes final will end your voting but if we all vote final we start PLAYING sooner!

These questions have been revised, or are new, and need to be (re)-voted on:

NOTE: revision is in brackets

a. random events on
b. pod scattering
4. Upgrade (individual) at end of turn only
6. Design (Workshop) upgrades at end of turn only
7. Reverse engineering
18. CMN specs
19. Instant terraforming
21. redundant and removed
23. redundant and removed

These questions have tie votes:
None

These questions thus far are resolved as:

1. No accelerated start
2. No announcement of probe action
3. No use of the demand withdrawl button
5. Declare Vendetta for probe action with the popup
8. No Allow SE quickies and no upgrading crawlers for quick SP's
9. No Multi airdrops
10. Yes Pod booming past hab limits
11. Yes Multiple drops or orbital insertions using the right-click menu is forbidden.
12. Yes Inserting Stockpile Energy into the build queue after a military unit is forbidden.
13. Yes If a player employs a tactic that causes a state of vendetta, they are not allowed to "accept" a pending diplomatic agreement with that faction, causing a change in diplomatic status or the transfer of energy or knowledge.
14. Yes If a probe team action is employed against a Treatied or Pacted faction, the initiator must choose the "Declare Vendetta" option, unless permission is received in advance for the action (email).
15. Yes Upgrading units with the design workshop is allowed at end of the turn only
16. Yes Social engineering choice limited to one switch per line per turn. (no flip-flop within turn!)
17. Yes Psi units cannot be assigned multiple point patrol routes (avoid instant demon boil bug!)
20. Yes Impending diplomacy is NOT ALLOWED in case of player causing vendeta
22. Setting the home of a unit to be the base of a pacted player is prohibited
25. Yes All players notified by email for Planetary Governor election
26. No You may rename a city to allow multiple artifacts to be connected to the same network node.
27. No (Shift-u) command will allow the passenger to unload while the air transport is in flight.

Communications

No Com before contact
Yes Comm by email
Yes Sunspot Communications Block with email notification

Map
Standard
Unknown by all players
balanced with all landmarks

dinoarms · June 26, 2001, 16:17

Your votes are acknowleged.

Would you like to make them final? ie end your eligibility to vote?

dinoarms · June 26, 2001, 16:20

I await response from buster on whether and how much he can police .sav files.

buster · June 26, 2001, 18:11

A few remarks to hopefully help wrap this up quickly:

AS CMN I do need to know the passwords.
Those who want a special password mail me at kn@brandenborg.dk, otherwise I will give you one. I do need the passwords as otherwise replacing a missing player is impossible, and in my experience saying "players set it themselves and then mail it to me" invariably leads to me having to chase them down as some forget to mail it etc.

I have no intention of taking part in the game. There has been a suggestion that I take over if a faction falls out (not by me). This is not a good idea. I will of course know a lot about what goes on in the game and it will be almost impossible to play as if I did not know.

Concerning checking the file I will do this once in a while, but don't expect I will keep my eyes on everything everyone does.
If a player suspects another is breaking rules, he can of course let me know and I will investigate and let you know what I find.

Concerning 48 hrs rule I agree this is rather stiff. Good practice is however:

a) If you are going away for an extended period let the others know by posting it well in advance so a decision if a sub (temporary replacement) should be found.

b) If you have a crash or are suddenly called away - it will usually be possible to borrow a friends pc for the three minutes it takes to make a post saying: "My PC has crashed - should be fixed on friday".

c) When deciding if someone should be replaced the persons "posting history" will be taken into consideration. That is a person who is normally doing his turns quiclkly - will get more time to reappear than one usually taking a day and a half.

Now regarding the questions on probe actions and overlap on votes 2,5 an 14. (From what I can see 5 and 14 is the same question).

The scene is this if Joe probes Bill and they are treatied or at truce the following happens:

A message comes to Joe (not Bill as it should) that Joe has probed Bill and does Joe want to ignore or declare vendetta. It always come - there is no chance it was not found out.

Thus the questions are two:

a) Is the probing player allowed to choose ignore or must he pick vendetta.

b) should the probed player be informed (like with a message on comm link "I probed you".

Usual arguments are (on both matters)

for: It is unfair that one can probe a pacted or treatied faction and he will never know

against: It is unfair that there is no chance of doing a secret probe action and players just need to keep their eyes open and to protect themselves.

Btw: If pacted the option is cancel pact (makes a treaty) instead of vendetta.

The other question is on use of withdraw button.

What happens here is in single player - if AI demands you withdraw - you can say yes or no. If yes units are sent to nearest base - if no they may declare vendetta or do nothing.

In pbem what happenss is you do not get a choice. Other player demands withdrawal and your units are automatically sent home or an automatic vendetta happens. This btw includes probes and btw happens even if you are only on truce. Factions who have not yet met are at truce and it will work even then.

Whether the result is a vendetta or an automatic return of units depends on the attitude of the faction one is demanding withdrawal of towards you. If I remember correctly - once it reaches beliggerent it is 50-50 higher is automatic withdrawal lower is automatic vendetta. The act of demanding withdrawal does not automatically lower the attitude of the other.

So arguments - for:

If factions are treatied and one cannot demand withdrawal it is very easy for them to sneak attack. There is a risk of demanding withdrawal leading to vendetta.

Against:

It will be possible for a player to run down the list of comm links - check the attitudes of the others towards self and demand withdrawal of everyone if above beliggerent any unit in your territory will be sent home - risk free. This can be devastating for conquer type players as:

Usually at start attitudes are favourable - even if you make SE choices not to the factions likings - attitudes usually take over 50 years to degrade to the point where a demand withdraw demand can result in a vendetta.
Besides there is no cancel treaty or declare vendetta button and getting another faction to aks you to attack someone also does not result in vendetta (this does not work). The only way to get withdraw not to work is to get into vendetta and the only way to get to vendetta is to attack someone and a player keeping his units inside the borders and demanding withdrawal regularly can keep you from ever getting near enough to one of his units to attack it.

The problem is due to: Not being given a choice - result being predictable and not having a declare vendetta button.

It becomes less of an issue once long range weapons arrive (planes) as one can easier attack across borders.

From what I gather current positions are:

a) on probe actions one should choose the penalizing choice (vendetta or cancel pact) rather than the ignorre choice.

b) inform the probed faction that one did so - unresolved.

c) withdraw button allowed - unresolved.

regards
Kim

SmartFart · June 26, 2001, 20:06

As a completely newbie in SMAC multiplaying I really don't know much about any trick and bug exploiting.

It's up to you guys to set up the rules and i'll play whatever rules are choosen. I am GMT+1 and am also reliable player who spend alot of free time on internet.

Looking forward to my turn

SF